Dealer OutlookTrade Only Dealer Outlook Blog2015-03-31T13:44:14Zhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?feed=atomWordPressNorm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23372015-03-31T13:44:14Z2015-03-31T13:44:14ZSome taxes are good and some are bad. More specifically, the federal gas tax and the death tax are worthy of attention these days. After all, Washington is talking tax code revisions and revenue increases and that’s always scary.

The federal gas tax isn’t getting much press right now but the Highway Trust Fund is supposed to become insolvent by June since Congress passed only nine months of funding last August. So it’s bound to come up soon and it’s one we both like and for which we have a stake. However, the recent call by the Wall Street Journal to abolish the federal gas tax is clearly not something the marine industry can support.

Without the gas tax, most of the $600 million in the Sport Fish Restoration & Boating Trust Fund spent annually to promote boating and fishing would simply disappear. These funds are a user-pay, user-benefit program that the industry could never replace. The money comes from boaters and anglers in this way: Excise taxes of 10 percent on certain sportfishing tackle; 3 percent on fishfinders, electric trolling motors and import duties on tackle and pleasure craft; and most from federal gas tax paid by anglers and boaters in their off-highway use.

While some in Congress support killing the gas tax (in favor of other funding models), others want to significantly raise it. Neither is good for boating. So here’s a “taxing” suggestion:

When introduced in 1956, the concept behind the gas tax was simple: those using highways would be paying for them. But now the Highway Trust Fund is being tapped for everything from street cars to ferries to biking and hiking trails and more. Put gas in your car, pay for a trail.

The Wall Street Journal noted that since 2008, such spending has increased 38 percent while there’s been zero increase in spending for roads. So it’s logical to use Highway Trust Fund dollars for highways and find other funding models for mass transit, trails and the rest. If that were so, even the Wall Street Journal predicts the fund would be essentially solvent for the next decade. No gas tax increase needed — just use it as it was intended.

On the other hand, as a dealer and small-business owner, here’s a tax you gotta hate — the death tax. There’s some positive action to report on this unjust tax that literally re-taxes wealth that has already been taxed throughout the descendant’s lifetime.

For the small businesses that are the majority of our dealerships, this insidious tax scheme particularly hurts family businesses that might have accumulated significant assets, but don’t have the cash to pay the 40 percent tax bite. The ugly result is that some or all assets must liquidate — a family loses the business or it closes forever leaving employees and suppliers out in the cold.

Now, there is a $5.34 million exclusion, and while the family of some dealers might fall under it, others might deliberately try to stay under it. But that’s not good either. For one thing, business growth can mean more jobs, fueling local economic expansion. So, without question, the death tax can actually have a negative impact on the economy. Reason enough to bury it.

To its credit, the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas has been a long-standing proponent of death to the death tax. “It is always very high on our list,” MRAA president Matt Gruhn says. “We consistently try to team up with other organizations who share our goal and we actively support measures that could end this unfair tax.”

There is currently one bill in the new Congress and, notably, it passed out of the House Ways and Means Committee last week. It’s H.R. 1105, the “Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015,” sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas). It passed in the committee 22-10 along party lines.

So is this finally the year the death tax meets its end? Uncertain at best. Republicans favor it, Democrats, including the President, support higher estate taxes on “the wealthy.” Interestingly, the Republican-led Congress is in a position to force a showdown in the Oval Office. Stay tuned and watch the MRAA for cues to become engaged if called on.

]]>1Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23352015-03-26T14:10:46Z2015-03-26T14:10:46ZTuesday’s Dealer Outlook called for increased penalties for commercial fisherman who break the law as something that should be considered in the upcoming reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But there’s much more that should be accomplished, particularly as related to recreational fishing.

So just what is the Magnuson-Stevens Act? It’s the primary law governing fisheries in U.S. federal waters, first passed in 1976 and most recently reauthorized in 2006. It’s a complicated law, having both national and international components, but its stated purpose was to promote the U.S. fishing industry’s optimal exploitation of coastal fisheries by “consolidating control over territorial waters.”

It’s most notable that a basic design flaw of the original act was that it didn’t consider recreational fishing. Not until the 2006 reauthorization that required establishing eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to “steward fishery resources” did things begin to change. The idea of the councils was to enable stakeholders to participate in the administration of fisheries and consider social and economic needs of states. A good idea, to be sure, but not really successful because the councils were made up primarily of commercial fishing members eyeing their own interests, not those of the recreational community.

In establishing the eight councils, Congress directed them “to achieve the goal of ending overfishing.” Moreover, the process required fishery managers to establish science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures for all U.S. fisheries with a deadline of 2010 for all stocks deemed subject to overfishing.

Big problem: Assessments of fish stocks either didn’t exist or were being done by the SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess) method that even the National Science Foundation couldn’t support. Meanwhile, fishery managers, faced with a far-too-short deadline and no flexibility, rushed to determine the health of stocks. The result has been many questionable restrictions and policies allocating allowable catch limits and recreational anglers getting the short end. The red snapper allocations and sector separation policies have become recreational fishing’s lightning rod.

“Time for change” has been the cry of recreational anglers who are now more vocal than ever. Many organizations have been pursuing recognition and changes in the context of Magnuson reauthorization. Groups like the American Sporfishing Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, Coastal Conservation, National Marine Manufacturers Association and state marine trade associations, among many others, have been leading the way.

As a result, the importance and huge economic impact of recreational fishing is now being recognized. Last month, NOAA unveiled its first-ever National Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Policy. The fishing organizations have convinced NOAA to recognize, define and coordinate federal efforts to advance saltwater recreational fishing. NOAA Fisheries assistant administrator Eileen Sobeck announced the new policy last month at the Miami International Boat Show.

“This policy represents a milestone in NOAA Fisheries’ relationship with the recreational fishing community,” American Sporfishing Association president Mike Nussman said. “While the sportfishing industry and the recreational fishing community have been frustrated with saltwater fisheries management in federal waters, much of it is attributable to the lack of clear guidance within NOAA Fisheries for how to properly manage and consider recreational fishing’s interests. This new policy sets forth a path for how the agency will elevate recreational fishing in a way that benefits both fisheries resources and public access to them.” Specifics on implementation of the new policy are expected to be released this spring.

On still another front, the state wildlife agencies from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas just announced an agreement for state-based management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper. According to the states, decisions made by NOAA’s Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in recent years have increased privatization of this public resource and decreased recreational fishing opportunities.

The states’ plan to form a Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority is predicated on transferring management away from the regional council. “Coordinated management among the states is the only solution to an unaccountable federal system of fisheries management,” Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation president Jeff Crane said.

Coastal Conservation Association president Patrick Murray said: “We have long pushed for the states to take over Gulf red snapper, but until now, we haven’t had a detailed plan for what state-based management would look like. Under this approach, we are confident that management outcomes will begin to align with the health of the resource and anglers’ access to it.”

How this plan will play out is unknown. However, what is clear is the recreational fishing community no longer accepts failed management policies that have resulted in unbalanced fishery decisions. Changes to Magnuson-Stevens during the reauthorization process are among the highest industry priorities and dealers should be prepared to be engaged in this critical process when called on.

]]>0Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23312015-03-24T12:38:40Z2015-03-24T12:23:25ZRed snapper? Red grouper? It’s a red alert for saltwater anglers and the dealers who serve them as we approach this year’s reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law governing fisheries in federal waters. Moreover, there needs to be increased penalties for commercial fishermen who break the law and foreign vessels illegally taking fish in U.S. waters.

For example, last week the Coast Guard cutter Heron seized about 120 red snapper aboard the Capt. Wallace B, a shrimp boat out of Brownsville, Texas. Heron was on routine patrol when they conducted a law enforcement boarding of the shrimper and discovered the illegal catch. Currently, the red snapper fishery in Gulf of Mexico waters is open only to commercial vessels holding an individual fishing quota (catch share) permit for red snapper. Meanwhile, for recreational anglers, red snapper fishing is closed.

The Capt. Wallace B was escorted to Port Isabel and the catch turned over to a National Marine Fisheries Service agent. The vessel owner could receive civil penalties of $20,000, hardly an adequate fine or deterrent to illegally fishing. More to the point, the fine should be six figures and, even better, there should be a clear provision in the law that allows suspension for an extended period of the fishing license (for any and all species) held by the vessel’s owner.

During the last year, 64 miles of illegal fishing gear were removed from federal waters by the Coast Guard. This included unlit, unmarked longline and gillnets that are hastily abandoned when the Coast Guard is seen coming.

In another case that should test the patience of recreational anglers, the U.S. Supreme Court let Florida commercial fishing boat captain John Yates off the hook after being convicted in lower courts of avoiding prosecution by tossing overboard undersized, illegal red grouper.

Yates was fishing off Florida when National Marine Fisheries Service officers inspected his boat. The agents said Yates had taken undersized red grouper and instructed him to return to shore. But before the boat reached shore, Yates allegedly threw the fish overboard, an act that typically results in only a wrist-slap $500 fine or puny temporary license suspension.

But in an unusual prosecution, Yates was charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which prohibits knowingly altering or destroying “any record, document or tangible object” with the intention of obstructing an investigation. Congress passed the law after the Enron scandal, when scores of documents were shredded to conceal wrongdoing.

A federal jury convicted Yates and he was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction. But the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, tossed the conviction, saying Yates should not have been prosecuted under a law targeting accounting fraud.

The law prohibits destruction of “any tangible object” during a federal investigation. Prosecutors argued that throwing fish overboard was “shredding” of “tangible evidence” and, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence! However, Yates argued that the law was aimed at the destruction of financial documents — not fish — and won the split decision.

Notably, Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, said Congress intended the law to have a wide scope to ban destruction of any physical evidence that could thwart law enforcement. “A fisherman like John Yates, who dumps undersized fish to avoid a fine, is no less blameworthy than one who shreds his vessel’s catch log for the same reason,” Kagan said.

It’s hard to imagine that Congress intended Sarbanes-Oxley to apply to a man throwing undersized fish overboard. So this case highlights the need for more aggressive provisions for prosecuting fishing violations by commercial boats under Magnuson-Stevens.

Finally, the Coast Guard recently pursued two Mexican fishing crews, interdicting one of them. A Coast Guard helicopter spotted the boats poaching fish approximately 10.5 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico maritime border. The air crew watched the fishing crew dispose of three sets of illegal long line fishing gear.

A Coast Guard boat crew arrived on the scene. The four Mexican nationals admitted to fishing illegally in U.S. waters with about 133 red snapper and shark on board. The Coast Guard estimates there are more than 1,100 incursions annually by Mexican commercial boats poaching upwards of 760,000 pounds of red snapper.

Coming in Part 2 on Thursday

A basic understanding of Magnuson-Stevens and a look at how we in recreational fishing have become more influential in federal fisheries management than ever before.

]]>2Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23272015-03-19T10:15:27Z2015-03-19T10:15:27ZAerial surveys by biologists during February tallied a record number of manatees, more than 6,000 of them around Florida, raising serious questions about any need to impose more restrictions on recreational boating in the name of manatee protection. When is enough, enough?

Now I know if you’re not a Florida dealer you might be thinking there’s no point in reading on. Read on anyway. And, yes, when I lived on Lake Erie I admit I joked with my Floridian counterparts who were struggling with manatee-related problems about not sending any of the sea cows up to Cleveland. But now that I live in the Sunshine State, my old jokes have come back to roost.

A team of 20 observers from 11 organizations reported counting 3,333 manatees on Florida’s east coast and 2,730 on the west coast. That’s 6,063 or about 1,000 more than the old record set in 2010, according to reports in the Tampa Bay Times.

“The high population count shows our long-term conservation efforts are working,” Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission chairman Robert Corbett told Times reporter Craig Pittman. State officials cite boating regulations among the measures that were initiated in 2001 to settle a lawsuit by the Save The Manatee Club.

“Obviously, it’s very good news, but it needs to be kept in context,” said Pat Rose, executive director of the club. “It doesn’t mean we’ve got 1,000 more manatees than we had in 2010.” Really?

The truth is even with this obvious success, efforts to further restrict boating activities continue. For example, plans that will impose slow manatee zones from St. Petersburg Beach to Tarpon Springs on Florida’s west coast are expected to be approved next month. While groups like the Tampa Bay Committee of the Southwest Florida Marine Industries Association succeeded in getting major sections of the Intracoastal Waterway channel removed from the proposed restrictions, there will still be some 20 new restricted areas zones, some as large as 11 square miles.

Elsewhere, the “Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility” reportedly has given the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service notice that it wants them to further restrict activities in the Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge. Each winter, some 265,000 tourists flock to see and swim with the manatees that gather there for the warm waters of Kings Bay and Three Sister Springs. There were nearly 1,000 manatees counted there last month.

The tours are operated by professional tour companies that carefully instruct the visitors on the proper rules of engagement with manatees and have employee(s) in the water to supervise at all times. No manatee has ever been harmed or killed by a swimmer’s petting and it’s a major winter economic engine for the community.

Meanwhile, the Pacific Legal Foundation has asked the FWS to lower the manatee from endangered to threatened status. The group represents Save Crystal River, which opposes recently imposed FWS rules restricting boaters to slow speed in Kings Bay in the summer months although the manatees have mostly scattered to their summer haunts along the Gulf of Mexico.

So when is enough, enough? Here are two things that should happen, given the happy realization that the old argument about manatees in decline no longer holds water.

First, the manatee no longer belongs on the endangered list. While no one wants to harm or endanger a manatee, something especially true for boaters, it should be downgraded to reflect the facts we know in 2015, not 1997 when it was first put on the endangered list.

Second, we are long past the point at which the FWS can continue to justify a moratorium on issuing new dock construction permits in many Florida areas citing the endangered manatee population.

When it comes to more boating restrictions, enough is enough.

]]>2Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23242015-03-17T12:56:39Z2015-03-17T12:56:39ZToday is for “the wearin’ of the green.” But if you’re a Michigan dealer who exhibited in the recent 23rd annual Spring Boating Expo, it’s more likely “the bankin’ of the green.” That, and an unexpected group joining our industry’s call for changes in the Renewable Fuels Standard, leads today’s blog.

The Michigan Boating Industries Association just wrapped up its four-day suburban event and by all accounts it was another success, not unlike shows around the country have been experiencing all winter.

“Unfortunately, that was down 4.3 percent from last year because the weather was too good,” she said with a smile. I know from experience that she’s right.

A week earlier, the temperatures were hovering around 7 degrees. The greater Detroit area has had a brutal winter. When cold-weary Michiganders finally saw the sun and temperatures cracking 50 degrees last weekend, they opted to run errands, wash cars and do things they hadn’t been able to do in weeks or months.

How do I know? Because after running winter boat shows for 34 years, I can say it was absolutely predictable that if temperatures suddenly pushed into the 50-degree neighborhood, show daily attendance would take a 15-percent-plus hit every time (it was 68 degrees in Detroit yesterday).

Still the good news here is that the MBIA show did very well. More important than the attendance was the fact that business was strong on the show floor.

“The dealers we spoke to all had a good show and were pleased with the sales written at the event,” Polan said. “Once again we see boat sales continuing to move up here in Michigan, and dealers say they’re very confident even more sales will come from leads gathered at this event.”

In a very notable move last week, the Advanced Biofuels Association reversed its support for the Renewable Fuel Standard and is now calling for Congress to “reform” the program. The National Marine Manufacturers Association’s daily newsletter Currents said the biofuels group represents advanced and cellulosic fuel producers.

With apparent changes in position like this one by the association, support continues to mount and pressure keeps building for Congress to act. This should help our efforts to reform the broken fuel standard and put an end to steadily increasing quantities of ethanol in our gasoline supplies.

]]>0Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23212015-03-12T14:05:29Z2015-03-12T14:05:29ZI’m tired of writing about ethanol and I’ll bet you’re tired of reading it. But winning the battle to halt ethanol’s march has never been more likely than it is now in the current Congress and it’s critical that all marine dealers take time to weigh in now.

The National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Marine Retailers Association of the Americas have put out the call for an all-out industry effort to support a bill just introduced in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Their legislation would reform the ethanol mandate and stop E15 from spreading across the country. The bill number is S.577 and its companion on the House side is HR.704 introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.. Together they show real momentum in the fight against the ethanol mandate.

The marine industry isn’t going it alone. Both bills have strong support from a diverse coalition of stakeholder groups. However, both need the support of more members of Congress and that’s where we can all step up today.

Contact your two senators and your representative. Ask them to co-sponsor either S.577 or HR.704, respectively. And it’s easy. Through the Boating United website, it takes just minutes to make your voice heard: Click here and get in the fight.

Background S. 577: In addition to Sens. Toomey and Feinstein, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is a cosponsor of the measure. But many more are needed. Therefore, it’s important you urge your two senators to sign on. To do it, use the pre-written letter on the Boating United site that asks for co-sponsoring S.577.

Background HR.704: It currently has 43 bipartisan co-sponsors. If your eepresentative is on this list, use the “thank you for sponsoring HR.577” email on the Boating United site. More importantly, however, if your representative isn’t on the list below, use the “Please Co-Sponsor HR.704” email on the site. Here’s the list of current co-sponsors:

Make no mistake — ethanol continues to expand. E15 is now in use in 16 states. The Sheetz convenience store chain announced it will begin offering E15 fuel at 60 of their North Carolina locations early this year.

As a result of the federal government’s Renewable Fuel Standard, ethanol is a top concern for boating today. The fuel standard mandates steadily increasing amounts of ethanol in our gasoline supplies but the standard is a broken law that sets unrealistic fuel mandates. Only a long-term fix by Congress will end the problem.

]]>2Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23192015-03-10T13:49:00Z2015-03-10T13:49:00ZYou just got a seat on your marine trade association’s board of directors? Congrats — it’s a clear vote of confidence and respect to be elected by your fellow members to serve. But after the applause and handshakes, you should not be confused about the serious responsibility you’ve just been handed.

Spring is when many state and local marine trade associations hold their annual meetings and elections. It usually means some new board members are taking a seat. And it’s understandable that the newly elected directors might presume they’re charged with representing the interests and wishes of the fellow members who elected them. Right church, wrong pew.

Members of the board certainly should take into account the interests of all stakeholders in the association. That said, an effective board member who understands his or her charge will see they must always put the interests of the association first.

Correctly, the board members are accountable for the association as an institution — a living entity whose mission is not just to survive, but thrive. The board should always be asking if any action or policy they’re considering will create more long-term value for the organization. What is in the best interest of the association is their primary responsibility.

Don’t misunderstand me. This is not to suggest member needs and wishes aren’t of prime importance. Of course they are. After all, every trade group should have as its basic tenant to protect and increase the business success of its members, most often by doing things that members could not likely do for themselves (state and federal lobbying, boat show production, regulatory monitoring, positive tax policy advocacy, broad market promotions and more.)

But the board is ultimately responsible for making decisions that can define the organization’s success or failure for years to come. For example, every association that produces a boat show wants to spend more on show advertising and promotion. Understandably, the members want as much bang for their space investment as possible. “Risk more and we’ll get more attendance,” is always considered. But because the association’s overall functions are likely funded primarily by the show’s surplus income, the level of risk vs. reward must be carefully weighed against the responsibility of the board to enact policies that generate stability and long-term value for the trade group and its members.

While establishing policies is the function of the board, micro-managing the association is not. That is management’s role and it needs to be recognized by all board members. It is most important, then, that management presents all matters for discussion in a clear way for the directors — identifying the overall context, key factors, all assumptions, the risk(s) to the association and the specific actions recommended. Management’s failure to do so forces the board to manage.

Conversely, it’s the responsibility of every association board to make certain any action(s) taken are clear and actionable for management to undertake.

Finally, it should be the role of the board chairman to take personal time to meet with new board members, discuss how the board functions, identify the responsibilities of a director, share necessary inside information, if any, and bring the newcomers up-to-date on current issues. That eliminates the probability that new members aren’t comfortable and sit back for a few meetings to get the “lay of the land” before seriously engaging.

In the end, a board is a body created for collective wisdom to guide the success of the association for all its members into the future. Individually, board members must have the humility to steadfastly serve and the guts to always do what is right for the association.

]]>2Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23142015-03-05T01:38:49Z2015-03-05T01:38:49ZYou’ve probably heard of the Boating Infrastructure Grant program, affectionately dubbed the “Big P” by those of us who have long cheered the benefits of seeing federal dollars spent to support recreational boating. It does things the industry couldn’t do for itself.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that oversees the Big P just awarded more than $12.2 million in competitive grants to 10 states for transient boating improvements. In addition, about $2 million more in grants is headed for 21 states that provide matching funds as part of a smaller program within Big P.

It’s critical to understand the Big P funds come directly from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, which America’s boaters and anglers support with their federal gas taxes as well as excise taxes on certain fishing and boating equipment. Moreover, the trust fund is up for renewal in Congress this spring, so it will be a priority at our industry’s America Boating Congress, which runs May 11-13.

So how does the Big P work? The grants are awarded specifically to construct, renovate and maintain docks for transient pleasure boats (those staying 10 days or less) that are 26 feet or more in length.

The Big P has two funding tiers. Tier One awards funds up to $100,000 to states with eligible transient dock projects. Tier Two is a bigger nationally competitive program with grants up to $1.5 million annually per transient dockage project. In addition, states receiving grants must bring an acceptable level of matching funds to the table for their projects. In just the last three years, states have supplied more than $50 million in matching funds.

Overall, the Big P teams up with state partners to improve boating and fishing opportunities. It enhances access for boaters as a part of the more the $600 million provided annually through the trust fund. Big P is just one small, but very meaningful, part of the trust fun. Reauthorization of the trust fund this year is a marine industry priority.

]]>1Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23112015-03-03T15:07:18Z2015-03-03T15:07:18ZFrom the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes, issues including red snapper, Asian carp and dangerous algae blooms are getting major attention. And they very well should because they directly impact boating.

More red snapper: Recreational fishermen continue to battle for a proper share of the prized red snapper fishery by opposing a proposal for “sector separation” in the Gulf of Mexico.

NOAA Fisheries wants comments from the public regarding Amendment 40 of the Fishery Management Plan that calls for taking away a portion of the recreational angler’s share of the red snapper fishery and gives it to charter boat owners (sector separation). In essence, Amendment 40 will further diminish red snapper fishing in federal waters for America’s saltwater fishing families.

Dealers, as well as anglers, who have a vested interest in saltwater fishing, whether in the Gulf or elsewhere, need to be engaged in this red snapper issue now because sector separation could be playing at a theater near you soon.

To act today, go to www.keepamericafishing.org and use the simple “Take Action” buttons that let you send your objection to red snapper sector separation. It’s that easy. And, while you’re there, look over and respond to the other issues like ethanol and the Sportsmen’s Act of 2015.

Less Asian carp: This voracious-feeding invasive species is in the Illinois Waterway and threatens to enter the Great Lakes at Chicago. If it ever does, it’s believed it could end the multi-billion dollar fishery of native species.

That’s why last week most members of Michigan’s congressional delegation proposed legislation to create a new barrier to these carp and call for a long-term plan for keeping them out of the Great Lakes.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Candice Miller are sponsoring legislation in their respective chambers with most of the state’s 14 other members of Congress signing on, too.

Among other requirements, the bill would push federal officials to step up efforts to block the Asian carp at a key choke-point in Joliet, Ill. Rep. Miller said: “This destructive species is quickly migrating north, destroying nearly every ecosystem along the way.”

President Obama’s budget includes $28 million to finish a third electric barrier near Chicago. Two electric “fences” are already in place and credited with keeping the carp in check for now. However, environmental groups are unhappy that only $500,000 has been requested by Obama to study digging a new channel at the Brandon Road Lock and Dam in Joliet featuring “technologies and measures necessary” to control the carp’s spread.

No more algae blooms: The U.S. House passed and sent to the Senate a bill requiring the EPA to develop a plan to deal with algal bloom toxins in public drinking water systems, including Lake Erie. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill were authored by Ohio lawmakers in response to last summer’s algal bloom crisis that shut down water supplies in Toledo from Lake Erie for about three days.

Algae blooms in western Lake Erie have been appearing in mid-summer for the last few years. They’ve negatively impacted boating and fishing activities in the prime season. H.R. 212, the “Drinking Water Protection Act,” was sponsored by Rep. Bob Latta and Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

It requires the EPA to develop a plan for handling algae bloom toxins within 90 days after the measure becomes law. The EPA also would be required to develop national standards for monitoring and treating toxins from harmful algal blooms.

Ten of the Great Lakes region’s largest environmental groups have also called on governors and Canadian premiers “to commit to at least a 40 percent reduction in phosphorus, with an emphasis on reducing agricultural sources.” Farming fertilizer use is believed to be the number one cause of algae blooms.

The bill passed the House 375-37. Sens. Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown are sponsors of the equivalent Senate bill, which is expected to see favorable action, too.

]]>1Norm Schultzhttp://blog.tradeonlytoday.com/dealer_outlook/?p=23082015-03-03T12:46:19Z2015-02-26T13:43:49ZLast Thursday, I posted a blog about potential new boaters in the Carlos C. Gomez family and their apparent frustration in finding what they considered an affordable first boat. Several of your comments, thank you, raised the conversation in ways worth further exploration.

My encounter with Gomez took place at the Progressive Miami International Boat Show, an amazing show that, by its nature, I think really isn’t the real world. Gomez could likely find more “affordable” small boats in the Cleveland or Nashville or Houston shows. Nevertheless, it seemed to support the idea that we might be succeeding in “selling” the boating lifestyle to newcomers, but we aren’t doing a good job of building or, especially, showing product that first-timers will see as affordable.

Matt Gurnsey identified in his comment to the blog a dilemma that most dealers likely face when it comes to their boat show participation. He said: “One of the biggest problems for dealers is the cost of space to exhibit at boat shows. Do we show a $10,000 boat or show a $30,000 in the same space that makes us more money?”

It’s hard to deny it is problematic for a dealer, especially when considering these points Gurnsey also makes:

Commissioned salespeople naturally want to sell more profitable larger boats to current boaters rather than deal with first-time buyers that require more time — “more hand-holding and more education” says Gurnsey — and deliver less profits and commission.

He admits he’s heard the comments from show visitors about no small boats in the show and has used space for 12- to 16-footers that price from $5,000. And he has sold some. “But we wonder what sales we missed by not having the more expensive boats there.”

In addition, products nationally advertised at promotional pricing by manufacturers takes the margins even lower and makes it harder to assign limited exhibit space in shows.

So is there an answer? Well, there are some things worth pondering:

Can the cost of exhibit space be reduced? That’s difficult. The costs of major shows are dictated by the venue’s required rent/labor/security/cleaning and much more. Add in decorating, advertising, feature costs and general overhead and every show manager struggles to hold the space price down. I know, having managed more than 125 boat shows.

Should each show allot free space for an “affordability” display of low-priced boats provided by dealers? It’s being done now in some shows where space is available. However, in cases where the show is a space sellout and dealers can’t get all they want now, the show would have to set aside some floor space, thus reducing what’s available to exhibitors. Moreover, if the show budget is based on income from a floor space sellout, the cost of the free space will have to be covered by increasing the basic space price to all. Still, even with that, it is something those who produce shows, particularly marine trade associations, need to talk about.

Could manufacturers provide assistance to dealers for holding in-store weekend events that focus solely on entry-level boats? A variation on a theme like: “Want to Be A Boater? Twenty Boats You Can Own for $250 or less! Demo Rides, etc.” Manufacturers could provide supportive promotional materials, unique economic incentives and even some product where feasible.

Can trade groups develop separate new boater promotions? It’s worth serious exploration. For example, could a trade association create a single day or weekend event(s) that is aimed squarely at new boaters . . . say a “Discover Boating Boat Show & Sale. Every boat on display is priced at $25,000 or Less.” Or every boat can be purchased for a payment of $250 or less, etc.

Such a venue won’t be an expensive exhibit hall, but perhaps a popular mall’s outer parking lot or on adjacent land to a large public marina or in the parking lot of a sports stadium or a local fair grounds. It would be a low-cost self-liquidating promotion or, perhaps, even partially subsidized from a trade association’s general funds. Moreover, such events could be held at different times in different parts of the trade association’s member area, thus serving a membership that’s geographically spread out.

Back to Gomez and his family. He was really saying: “I’m having trouble balancing the desire to get a boat with the cost.” Clearly we weren’t able to show him enough choices at the show.

I get every dealer’s concern when it comes to shows, space and profit margins. So we need two things to happen: 1) We need to produce more reasonably prices boats in this industry to appeal to newcomers and 2) we need to bring them to the marketplace where the new boaters can see and touch them . . . and maybe that has to be done in new and innovative ways.